CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ12672803, ADJ12979844, ADJ12673709
Regular
Apr 24, 2023

FREDDIE BANUELOS vs. ROBERT BERCU, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of three prior decisions, affirming the dismissal of the post-termination defense for a right knee injury (ADJ12979844) and a cumulative trauma psychiatric injury claim (ADJ12673709), finding employer knowledge prior to termination. However, the Board amended the decision for a cumulative orthopedic injury claim (ADJ12672803), deferring the finding of industrial injury pending further development of the record regarding specific body parts and treatment needs. The Board also clarified that no psychiatric injury was found to date in ADJ12673709, and arguments regarding medical evidence for that claim were premature.

Post-termination defenseLabor Code 3600(a)(10)Labor Code 3208.3(e)Employer knowledgeIndustrial injuryOrthopedic injuryPsychiatric injuryCumulative traumaSpecific injuryRight knee injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. ADJ7165116
Regular
Jul 05, 2018

FRANK ANTONE ALFAMA III vs. SMART & FINAL, LLC

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for psychiatric injury. The applicant's claim was denied by the WCJ and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board because it was filed after his termination. The Board affirmed the denial, finding the applicant failed to meet any exceptions to Labor Code section 3208.3(e)'s post-termination psychiatric claim provisions. Specifically, a customer altercation leading to termination was not deemed a "sudden and extraordinary event," and no prior notice of psychiatric injury, medical records, or harassment were present.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCumulative InjuryNervous System InjuryPsyche InjuryPost-Termination Psychiatric ClaimLabor Code Section 3208.3(e)Sudden and Extraordinary EventsNotice of Termination
References
1
Case No. ADJ2760698
Regular
Oct 14, 2011

BERTHA CHAN vs. CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for psychiatric injury and related physical symptoms allegedly resulting from sexual harassment. The applicant claims her employer's post-termination defense is invalid because she did not have notice of termination before filing her claim and had sought medical treatment prior to termination. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior WCJ's decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found that the applicant did not have the requisite knowledge of a potential industrial injury prior to termination for the post-termination defense to apply.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3208.3sexual harassmentcumulative traumapsychiatric injurypost-termination defenseDWC-1 Claim Formpanel QMEadjustment disordersubstantial evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Regenbogen v. New York State Willard Psychiatric Center

The case involves an appeal regarding a workers' compensation claim for mental injury filed by a former employee of Willard Psychiatric Center, who later worked for the Workers’ Compensation Board. The claim, initially found compensable, faced jurisdictional challenges after a March 1997 amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 20 (2) (a) mandated neutral arbitration for Board employees' claims pending on or after its effective date. The court found that the Workers’ Compensation Board lacked jurisdiction to issue its June 1997 amended decision because the claim was still 'pending' after the amendment's effective date. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decisions and remitted the entire matter for arbitration, emphasizing that the legislative intent was to remove any appearance of partiality in such claims.

Workers' Compensation BoardJurisdictional DisputeRetroactive Application of LawStatutory AmendmentArbitration MandateMental Stress ClaimAppellate ProcedurePending ClaimsBoard Employee ClaimsAdministrative Law
References
5
Case No. ADJ8015423
Regular
Nov 19, 2013

REMEDIOS LIRA vs. PREMIUM PACKING, INC., SEDGWICK CMS (Claims Administrator)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration concerning an applicant's psychiatric injury claim. The WCJ had previously found the injury compensable and not barred by the post-termination defense. The defendant argued they had no notice of the psychiatric injury prior to termination, and the WCJ's report introduced the "sudden and extraordinary" event defense for the first time. The Board granted reconsideration to allow the defendant to respond to this new issue, pending further proceedings.

ADJ8015423Remedios LiraPremium PackingInc.Sedgwick CMSPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardindustrial injurypsychepost-notice of termination
References
2
Case No. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08907 [156 AD3d 1132]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2017

Claim of Kraus v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

Claimant, Gerard J. Kraus, a workers' compensation claims adjustor for Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., was terminated due to inconsistent application of a no-fault policy, which led to him receiving threats from unionized employee drivers. He subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits, alleging a psychiatric occupational disease, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, panic disorder, and insomnia, stemming from work-related stress and threats. The Workers' Compensation Board found that claimant sustained a causally-related accidental psychiatric injury and rejected the employer's contention that claimant violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The Board also denied the employer's application for reconsideration, full Board review, and a rehearing, deeming some filings untimely. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board's determination of a compensable work-related psychiatric injury was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board properly exercised its discretion in its procedural rulings.

Psychiatric InjuryPTSDWorkplace StressCausationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsEmployer PolicyEmployee TerminationAdministrative ProcedureAppellate DivisionSufficiency of Evidence
References
18
Case No. ADJ10383637
Regular
Nov 01, 2016

BRENDA RICH vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

The defendant appeals an award of temporary disability and medical reimbursement. The applicant's psychiatric injury claim was found barred by the post-termination provisions of Labor Code section 3208.3(e). However, the initial finding incorrectly granted benefits based on the defendant's failure to act after receiving a medical evaluator's report, as per Labor Code section 4063. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original decision, and ruled that no compensation is owed due to the claim being time-barred and a post-termination claim.

post-termination claimLabor Code section 3208.3(e)psychiatric injurytemporary disability indemnityself-procured medical carestatute of limitationsformal medical evaluationqualified medical evaluatorpanel selectiondeclaration of readiness to proceed
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paisley v. Coin Device Corp.

Plaintiffs Dougal Paisley and Rohan Christie, employees of Coin Device Corporation, were terminated after being arrested for missing money, despite charges being dismissed. They subsequently filed an action against Coin Device Corporation, Biju Thomas, and Brian Gibbons, alleging malicious prosecution, wrongful termination, negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, ruling that the defendants were not liable for malicious prosecution as they merely provided information to the police, who made the arrest decision. Furthermore, the court found the wrongful termination claims invalid due to the plaintiffs' at-will employment status, and the negligence claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law, leading to the dismissal of all specified claims against the appellants.

malicious prosecutionwrongful terminationnegligenceloss of consortiumpunitive damagesat-will employmentWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211appealemployer liability
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 19,242 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational